|
Bankers Trust 美国信孚银行 Summary: 总结： Bankers Trust (BT) was sued by four of its major clients - Federal Paper Board Company, Gibson Greetings, Air Products and Chemical, and Procter & Gamble - who asserted that Bankers Trust had misled them with respect to the riskiness and value of derivatives that they had purchased from the bank. The first three cases were settled out of court for a total of $93 million. The $195 million Procter & Gamble suit was settled at a net gain to P&G of $78 million. The most lasting damage, however, was to BT's reputation. 美国信孚银行被4个主要客户起诉 - Federal Paper Board Company（联邦纸板公司），Gibson Greetings(吉布森礼品公司)，Air Products and Chemical（空气化学产品有限公司）Procter＆Gamble（宝洁公司） - 谁断言，关于他们从银行购买衍生产品的风险和价值，美国信孚银行误导了他们。前三例，已经达成庭外和解，共9300万美元。宝洁公司1.95亿美元的的诉讼已经解决，净收益7800万美元。然而，最持久的损害，就是信孚银行的声誉。 Overview: 概述： In the mid-1990s, Bankers Trust (now part of Deutsche Bank) was one of the leading bank in the marketing of innovative financial products. The bank prided itself on its superior financial abilities and on its leading edge risk management with respect to its derivatives trading. Yet Bankers Trust's reputation took a pounding after the bank was sued by several customers alleging various forms of fraud and racketeering with respect to derivatives transactions they had entered into with the bank. Several of these suits have since been settled both in and out of court, costing the company millions of dollars in settlement and possibly much more in damage to its reputation. 概述： 在20世纪90年代中期，美国信孚银行（现在是德意志银行（Deutsche Bank）的一部分）是在创新金融产品市场的首要银行之一。就其衍生品交易的风险管理方面，银行自傲在于其卓越的财务能力和其领先优势。然而，被几位客户起诉后，美国信孚银行的声誉了被打碎后，指控他们与银行签订的衍生工具交易方面的各种形式的欺诈和诈骗。至今，这几起诉讼已在法院内外解决，公司花费数百万美元的结算，可能使公司的声誉更加受损。 Why did these problems arise? The root cause appears to have been that BT's clients felt that BT had unfairly exploited their comparative lack of sophistication in handling these sophisticated derivative products. For example, Procter & Gamble (P&G), the client whose case received the most publicity, had entered into complex interest-rate derivatives transactions with the bank. These transactions represented a bet on P&G's part that U.S. interest rates would remain stable, or decline, over the transaction period. If interest rates rose, however, P&G would lose a substantial amount of money. In addition, P&G made its bets more aggressive by leveraging its positions twenty-to-one. 为什么会出现这些问题？根本原因似乎一直认为，BT的客户感觉，BT在处理这些复杂的衍生产品中不公平的利用各自的比较不够成熟，。例如，宝洁公司（P＆G），客户的情况受到了多方关注，已进入复杂的利率衍生品交易的银行。这些交易代表了宝洁公司的一部分，在交易期间美国利率将保持稳定或下降，。然而，如果利率上升，宝洁公司将失去大量的金钱。此外，此外,宝洁公司让其赌注更激进,可以利用其职位二十到一个。 The transactions lost a substantial amount after the US Federal Reserve Board raised interest rates repeatedly in 1994. P&G subsequently sued BT for $195 million, claiming that the bank had failed to fully inform it with respect to the risk involved in the transactions. BT countered that it was not acting in an advisory (or "fudiciary") role to P&G, since the firm had retained its own outside experts to create interest rate forecasts. It also claimed that P&G's reputation for using cutting-edge financing techniques cast doubt on its claims to be nave in this matter. 交易后失去大量的美国联邦储备委员会在1994年多次上调利率。宝洁公司随后起诉BT为$195万美元，声称该银行未能充分告知有关的交易中所涉及的风险。 BT反驳说，它不是作用在P＆G，咨询（或“fudiciary”）的作用，因为该公司已保留其自己的外部专家建立利率的预测。它还声称，宝洁的声誉使用尖端融资技术质疑声称自己是在这件事情中殿。 This appears to be an example of poor stakeholder management. In focusing on increasing profits, Bankers Trust didn't pay adequate attention to the fact that its clients were vital to its business. Even if it did nothing dishonest, it failed to serve its clients in terms of making them feel informed and at ease with their deals. 这似乎是一个例子，利益相关者管理不善。美国信孚银行在注重增加利润，没有给予足够的重视，其客户对其业务至关重要的事实。即使没有什么不诚实，未能为其客户服务，使他们感到知情，便于与他们的交易。 http://www.ukassignment.org/mgessaydx/ |
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
